The story told until recent years about the "unwritten" British Constitution was a charming paradox. On the one hand, the lack of a written Constitution there meant that the law could adapt much more easily to crises or changing circumstances. Nonetheless, this constitution was remarkably stable and rights were well-protected because respect for precedent and tradition was deeply entrenched among elites and voters.

Not any more. Since the 1990s, Britain has embarked on a series of constitutional experiments unlike those in any other Western democracy. There was the end of hereditary peers in the House of Lords, the creation of regional parliaments in Scotland and Wales, the establishment of a Supreme Court to replace the House of Lords as the leading judicial authority, a referendum on Scottish independence, the end of discretion for the Prime Minister in calling general elections, and more. Now we have the Brexit referendum (and soon, perhaps, another Scottish independence referendum), which will have far-reaching implications for domestic law and for the continuation of the United Kingdom.

Whether this was a good idea or not remains to be seen, but you can't say that Britain's Constitution is, to use Sandy's term, "undemocratic." If by democratic, you mean majoritarian. The only exception is the Queen, who seems to be the last refuge of the old-fashioned.

Whether this was a good idea or not remains to be seen, but you can't say that Britain's Constitution is, to use Sandy's term, "undemocratic."

The British do not have a constitution as we understand the term - structuring and limiting government. The Brits have a parliamentary democracy which freely changes governmental structures as it wishes.

Oral contracts are enforceable. The problem in Britain is that there is no contract of any kind. Parliament can basically do about anything it pleases.

Mark:

Our Constitution is a contract between the People and their government - guaranteeing the liberties of the former and limiting the powers of the latter. The problem is that the party of the second part has been violating this contract with increasingly frequency.

titled The UK Constitution, dated March 2015, prepared at the direction of the House of Commons. It's got some interesting cartoons. Note a reference to a New Magna Carta. If the Brits say they have a constitution, does it make any difference that American constitutional "scholars" here (aka, the usual suspects) challenge this?

The Federalist Papers repeatedly spoke of the "British Constitution" and it was a common understanding in that era, including arguments pre-Revolution that such and such violated the "our Constitution" or some such thing. They thought that constitution had some force. Plus, IIRC, Mr. W. went back and forth on definitions in this context.

Anyway, our Constitution is written, but a lot of the stuff is unwritten, a creature of common law just as the British Constitution in various ways. There was a lot of change over the years though they did have a lot of changes in a small (especially given their history) period of time. As to the Queen ... when was the last time the monarch mattered, I wondered as in making a real choice that had some effect on British politics.

Well, the last time a monarch vetoed a bill was 1708. But monarchs continued to choose the Prime Minister, independent of party, until after the American Revolution (during much of which time George III was crazy anyway).

The creation of the Supreme Court was just the renaming and formalisation of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. A referendum on Scottish independence is not, in itself, a constitutional change. Limiting the Royal Prerogative over dissolving Parliament was more a clarification than a change, because the Queen isn't supposed to act without the consent of Parliament (see the Dimissal, Australia, 1975). Hereditaries in the Lords was cosmetic; they'd long been heavily outnumbered by lifers among active peers. So that leaves you just one significant change; the devolutions of 1997. Considering that we've had Stormont come and go over the years, it's hard to see this as radical.

Brexit is a radical change, but it isn't a constitutional one. The ECJ's pretensions to the contrary, the EU is a treaty organisation, whose effect on British law derives entirely from the ECA. And even if you take the ECJ's tiresome position, it will merely be a restoration of the status quo ante.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the "charming paradox" is intact. Rights are well-protected, the consitution remains stable. The two pieces of genuine constitutional radicalism - Scottish Independence and AV - were both rejected at the ballot box, precisely because of the deeply entrenched traditionalism that you pretend doesn't exist.

Joe: The Federalist Papers repeatedly spoke of the "British Constitution" and it was a common understanding in that era, including arguments pre-Revolution that such and such violated the "our Constitution" or some such thing. They thought that constitution had some force.

Our founders turned to armed revolution because the English common law constitution was not being enforced and then drafted two written constitutions to remedy that problem.

"Our founders turned to armed revolution because the English common law constitution was not being enforced"

Our Founders actually wrote a Declaration making their motives clear, and they seemed to be more concerned with the blocking of their ability to democratically rule themselves. The first grievances they listed there are as follows:

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

Query: Not to interfere with the preparation for "multiple trials," was the Articles of Confederation referred to back then as a "constitution"? The 1787 Constitutional Convention was not called in accordance with the earlier "constitution." And the 1787 Constitution was not approved in the manner provided for in the earlier "constitution." Some claim a written "constitution" beats an unwritten constitution. But the earlier written "constitution" was in effect overridden by the 1787 written Constitution in a manner violative of the earlier "constitution." Was the Articles of Confederation worth the paper it was written on?

My reading of the situation was that the Convention was "called" in a legitimate fashion but "approval" was a bit much hinky. Federalist 40 (which seems to be relevant regarding possibly changing the Senate):

In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention. The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth; from the example of inflexible opposition given by a MAJORITY of one sixtieth of the people of America to a measure approved and called for by the voice of twelve States, comprising fifty-nine sixtieths of the people an example still fresh in the memory and indignation of every citizen who has felt for the wounded honor and prosperity of his country. As this objection, therefore, has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation.

Articles of Confederation (which probably should be given more attention, since it is helpful to understand the Constitution -- there is some overlap, some very notable changes) states:

"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

I also found this comment in the Federalist Papers:

"The treaties of the United States, under the present Constitution, are liable to the infractions of thirteen different legislatures, and as many different courts of final jurisdiction, acting under the authority of those legislatures."

The "present Constitution" being the "Articles of Confederation." It does seem "Articles of Confederation" and "Constitution" have different implications, one more of a treaty type of thing, the other a more consolidated union.

It could be argued that America has had only one constitution, to wit, the Articles of Confederation, altered by the 1787 constitution, including the name change to the Constitution, when finally ratified by all the states in 1790, AFTER Washington's inauguration in 1789 as President. Query: Under applicable law back then, did RI's ratification (32-30) in 1790, purify actions taken prior thereto under the 1787 Constitution, including Congress' action in approving the first 10 As in 1789 (that were ratifies in 1791)? Was there ever an adjudication? What might originalists/textualists say?

The stunning Brexit vote showed all too clearly a chasm between elite and mass opinion, something that has always fascinated me, at least when it comes to democracies. How do such splits happen in political systems that have regular and fair elections? Or better, when they happen, why are they not corrected over time by the election of new elites?

Most OECD nations do not elect their elite. Rather, this elite increasingly rules like a caste.

This elite has been called many names over the past century - educated class, political class, creative class, bourgeois bohemians, technocrats and bildingsbergertum. I call them the Credentialed Caste. This elite very much resembles the mandarin class in ancient and middle ages China. In general, they graduate from “elite” universities; share progressive politics and an aristocratic world view; dominate the party establishments, the bureaucracy, academia, the professions and finance; self-segregate geographically from the rest of society; intermarry and raise their children to repopulate this elite.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen calls them the “political class” and did some fascinating polling shown how sharply their world view’s differ from that of the average American for a book called Mad as Hell. James Fallows (More Like Us), David Brooks (Bobos in Paradise), Charles Murray (Coming Apart) have also done work on this subject.

Elections do not substantially challenge this elite rule. The vast majority of law is now imposed by the bureaucracy. The elected establishment representatives tend to vote with one another to protect the status quo to the extent that the GOP establishment has actually been voting with the minority Democrats and against the wishes of their constituents on recent budget bills. When Obamacare went before the Supreme Court, the legal profession and legal academia successfully pressured the so called “conservative” justices to protect the policy.

Your average American may not understand these behind the scenes machinations, but they do understand that their government no longer enacts their will.

As a Great Depression born (1930), I became aware of "elite" in the late 1930s, early 1940s through listening to the radio, in particular "Duffy's Tavern," starring Ed (Archie) Gardner, who opened the program answering the phone: "Duffy's Tavern, where the elite meet to eat. Archie the manager speaking. Duffy ain't here" in sort of Chicago Irish style. I knew little of taverns back then, other than I used to live across the street from one for a short while in that timeframe. There was the Elite DoNut shop in the Roxbury shopping area. My grade school classmates and I used to parody Archie's opening with a non-vegan variation that our parents would not approve of.

As time went on, with the Great Depression over, high school, college and law school, practicing law, I got a more nuanced meaning of elite that has continued to evolve in my old age. SPAM I AM! has his the "Credentialed Caste" in his email to Stephen Griffin. Perhaps SPAM I AM! has finished assembling exhibits for his "multiple trials" and is back to work on his current work-in-progress (digress?) of Friction, trying out on Griffin what might be SPAM I AM!;s Chapter XI [thank you, Hillary]. SPAM I AM! name drops, perhaps to impress Griffin - or us mere average "usual suspects" - including with his "bildingsbergertum" and "mandarin class in ancient and middle ages China." But Rasmuussen?

SPAM I AM! goes on to say:

"When Obamacare went before the Supreme Court, the legal profession and legal academia successfully pressured the so called “conservative” justices to protect the policy."

Perhaps Griffin was part of this pressure group, but who were the "conservative" justices excluding CJ Roberts? (There were several Obamacare cases addressed by the Court, but SPAM I AM! has not specified which one he was referring to.)

SPAM I AM! closes with:

"Your average American may not understand these behind the scenes machinations, but they do understand that their government no longer enacts their will."

Is SPAM I AM! speaking for the "average American" and if so, does that make him an "elite" of some sort? Maybe SPAM I AM! might read Ilya Somin's book on what voters don't know and learn more about himself.

No, I don't recall in that timefram, especially since there wasn't as yet Pogo or Doonesbury in the comic sections. The sports sections didn't fous on politics. But I do recall Bill Cunningham's The Boston Herald colums constantly on the attack as a ultra conservative of the New Deal. My immigrant parents were fortunate that we did not need direct welfare assistance, like food, clothing and other necessities. But more than a few of my grade school classmates' families were receiving direct welfare. (I have commented several times on the "welfare" store in my Roxbury neighborhood back then that had no signs and my observations of classmates leaving the store with big bags of food.) Other than comics and sports, I would read about WW II. And there was rationing. It was a time my parents focused on survival, allowing my brother and me to grow up happy, not wanting, protecting us, as was the case for many families back then. I was focusing on my A,B,Cs and R, 'R and 'R. And America survived. The alphabet agencies did not stop Americ's survival, and the G.I. Bill was available for my older brother to go to college and indirectly without that expense my family could provide for my college and law school education.

But I was aware of Republican President Hoover and how the Great Depression came about during his term, including how Hoover's 1928 campaign slogan - A car in every garage, a chicken in every pot - he could not fulfill.

I was of course aware of FDR, including the presidential elections of 1940 and 1944 when he was reelected. What I recall about the 1940 campaign was the war in europe and news on that war; also that his opponent was Wendell Wilkie who had a "One World" theme, not a common one. And in 1944, the US and its allies were succeeding, when FDR's opponent was the mustached Tom Dewey who's appearance reminded some of Hitler. (I knew Dewey had been a DA in NY, but he was not from the Car Talk law firm Dewey Cheatham & Howe.)

While I understand class (and that you don't have any), can you explain your recent use of "caste"?

•any class or group of people who inherit exclusive privileges or are perceived as socially distinct.

"those educated in private schools belong to a privileged caste""

I'm familiar with Rasmussen's work on the topic. Essentially the idea is that our elected officials, bureaucrats, and so forth, more and more come from an identifiable closed group, distinct from general society, and with opinions different from the general population.

Fat lot of good it does to be able to vote, when they control who you can vote for.

The credentialed class started turning into a caste beginning in the 1960s.

So called "elite" universities and the professions are increasingly more difficult to enter due to testing and cost of the education.

The credentialed class started intermarrying and is fixated on ensuring that their children also attend "elite" universities and follow them into the bureaucracy, professions, academia, media and finance. Because of this parental example and pressure along with expensive preparation and financial means, the children of the credentialed class are far more likely than the average American to attend "elite" universities and enter the credentialed class.

How might Brett and SPAM I AM!, separately class the caste he himself occupies? Might each of them have im mind a proposed amendment for Sandy's proposed second constitutional convention to address this issue, keeping in mind the various provisions in the Constitution that call for some sense of equality or non-discrimination? Is this yet another inequality issue that might suggest issues of income/asset inequality and my concern with 2nd A inequality to be addressed? There are many levels of inequality to address. Or is this Trump-ed by winning the vagina lottery?

The Democrat totalitarians are at it again, adding a provision calling for the Justice Department to prosecute (translation persecute for heresy) businesses which question the manmade global warming theory.

Shag: Might each of them have im mind a proposed amendment for Sandy's proposed second constitutional convention to address this issue?

Actually, I do. I recently added a section to my liberty amendment forbidding the government from requiring a license to pursue any employment or engage in business or trade.

This reform was inspired both by my research on the Credentialed Caste and a story I recently read about a woman who pretended to have the necessary credentials to practice law and rose to become a partner at her firm and the president of her local bar association with awards for her ability later being prosecuted for the crime of practicing law without the proper credentials.

As I suspected, SPAM I AM! is in his self-promotion commercial mode with his BREAKING NEWS! on his new work of Friction in progress including an amendment " ... forbidding the government from requiring a license to pursue any employment or engage in business or trade." His inspiration demonstrates how meaningless his life must be, stuck in a rural community, unable to generate traffic on his own blog. Who besides Brett (and I'm not sure of him) takes SPAM I AM! seriously. Those "multiple trials" he announced he is preparing for have not really deflected him from his trolling of this Blog, suggesting that they are not "major cases" or that his trolling and self-promotion comes first. SPAM I AM! would seem to do away with police powers at the state level and positive law to boot..

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], note that SPAM I AM! ignored responding to class the caste he occupies.

Earlier, SPAM I AM! adorns his Chicken Little costume about the "Democrat totalitarians."

I didn't ask the question of what amendment I would offer at Sandy's constitutional convention, you did. If you do not want to read the answer, do not pose the question.

I am touched by your concern for my trial readiness. Given that you seem to live vicariously through me, I know you will be pleased to learn that I traded exhibit binders with the other party today. Woo hoo!

Please do not lose any sleep over wasting my time. It only takes a few minutes a day to dispose of your rants, er... posts.

Perhaps SPAM I AM! is unaware that forensic analysis could readily establish that SPAM I AM! spends substantially more than a few minutes a day with his comments at this Blog. Perhaps his clients questioning his charges might raise eyebrows if he charges based upon an hourly rate. Vicariously live through SPAM I AM!? No, it's baiting SPAM I AM! as he trolls at this Blog and constantly has his derriere handed to him. [Quick, get the net!] SPAM I AM! openly displays his narcissism well at this Blog. Just go through some of the archives randomly and picture that.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], there was a series of rhetorical question and SPAM I AM! responded only to the one that would permit him to self-promote. I wonder how well SPAM I AM! would handle the competition from unlicensed attorneys in his rural community.

Our American system has long thought that 'elites' would play an important role. Our Founders certainly thought, hoped, and planned for in our institutions that the 'better sort' would ameliorate the problems they saw in more popular rule. Think of the electoral college and electors. There was a revolt against that sort of thinking with the Jacksonian Era of the Common Man, a revolt which embraced the idea that politics was not about expertise but about a mere and raw conflict of values and power, a revolt that led to things like the corrupt urban machines and incompetent patronage workforces. This led to a revolt by the middle classes who wanted a more scientific approach to many government functions-they didn't want a Republican way to make roads or a Democrat way but a way that an expert engineer would make a road, they didn't want a Republican way to keep the government books or a Democrat way, they wanted a way that tracked accounting best practices of the day. People wanted to get the goods that come from getting the best people in government to address issues with the benefit of education, training and professional standards. They turned to ways to rationalize such things, licensing schemes and educational standards for hiring, because those thing are useful heuristics. Taking a person off the street might give you a good, trustworthy accountant now and then, but in general it's a risky proposition, and taking an accountant with years of education in the field and who has met licensing requirements can still produce a dud, but in general you'll get a better accountant.

Lately, experts are marrying other experts a lot more, and, they being experts, they're very good at navigating the system of introducing their children to the best advantages they can to improve their chances of being part of institututions and programs with proven general track records in teaching expertise. People who are not as resourceful-both in the sense of having the time/awareness and ability to navigate the systems of potential resources out there-and in the sense of having money to pay for those that charge-are indeed at a disadvantage.

Bart seems confused (and hurt?) that leaders of various stripes and ideologies generally turn towards experts to run their programs and administrations. But this is just common sense. If you can afford the plumber with the best reputation in town, you get him, not a plumber you've never heard anything about. Degrees from elite universities and experience with elite institutions serves as a kind of extra-regional and more general reputational heuristic. If these reputations didn't track ability the market (both economic and political) would have sorted that out long ago.

Mr. W: Bart seems confused (and hurt?) that leaders of various stripes and ideologies generally turn towards experts to run their programs and administrations. But this is just common sense. If you can afford the plumber with the best reputation in town, you get him, not a plumber you've never heard anything about. Degrees from elite universities and experience with elite institutions serves as a kind of extra-regional and more general reputational heuristic. If these reputations didn't track ability the market (both economic and political) would have sorted that out long ago.

So called "rule by experts" directing the lives of the citizenry and their businesses is a failed system. Despite having a technological lead over Europe, Mandarin China stagnated for centuries and fell behind the West because the mandarin class prevented the development of a market economy. In turn, the West pissed away its massive advantage in economic productivity over the rest of the world by adopting a modern version of the Chinese mandarin system, which is progressively strangling our market economies.

The reason "rule by experts" does not work is because, no matter how smart the bureaucracy, the government does not have the knowledge to efficiently run even the simplest economy and certainly not enough to run a complex modern economy. Only people running their own lives to achieve their own goals and businesses who know their customers guided by a free market price system have the knowledge to run an economy.

Like the Chinese mandarins before, our Credentialed Caste cannot accept this reality because it is contrary to their entire world view that the "rule of experts" can perfect society and, more importantly. threatens their status as the governing elite.

Bart, most of what you call the 'credentialed class,' especially those at the top, don't work in government regulation or planning at all, they live not near capitals but in places like NYC and Silicon Valley, they work in finance or technology innovation. Again, if private companies didn't find that these people raised value for them they wouldn't keep hiring them at such high salaries. This is just populist resentment, or as your Party's nominee would put it, 'losers whining.'

BREAKING NEWS!. Post Brexit, Iceland beats England and Brits are gnashing their tooth! Iceland won with a goal. But will the goal of Brexit result in a UK win?

Stephen Colbert had some "serious" commentary on Brexit last night on The Late Show. He picked up on John Oliver's Last Week This Week from the previous week on the "intelligence" attribution of the British accent, but without reference to Oliver. Colbert was effective.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], SPAM I AM! qualifies as a non-expert in critiquing "rule by experts." Is SPAM I AM! challenging American meritocracy and/or the Constitution's republican governance? Is SPAM I AM! buying into Thomas Piketty's income/asset inequality? Is SPAM I AM! proposing egalitarian rule that the Founders/Framers put into place? These are rhetorical questions addressed to our non expert SPAM I AM! Meantime, I'm hankerin' for some mandarin oranges.

The Credentialed Caste only make up a fraction of today's university graduates and around 7% to 10% of the overall population, depending on how various authors define them.

The Credentialed Caste clusters in the bureaucratized parts of our political economy, including increasingly finance. They are the anti-thesis of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.

Noting the existence of a Credentialed Caste is hardly a recent populist phenomenon. Various historians, political scientists and public intellectuals have been discussing this phenomenon for decades. Over a century ago, American progressives were discussing their goal of a "rule by experts."

"The Credentialed Caste clusters in the bureaucratized parts of our political economy, including increasingly finance. They are the anti-thesis of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs."

Bart, according to your main source Charles Murray himself the Silicon Valley/San Francisco region accounts for 20% of all of his 'superzips,' more than the Washington DC area. So much for your theory.

Also, you appear to defining your class so that you get the result you're working toward. The Silicon Valley zip codes are as credentialed and elite as any other example you have, excluding them because they don't fit what your theory supposes is pretty suspect.

Murray's book offers a number of useful data points which do apply to the Credentialed Caste.

Murray's Super Zip analysis is useful to the extent that it shows the self segregation of the Credentialed Caste within the larger group of very wealthy university educated. There are undoubtably a larger than usual concentration of CC in the San Fran super zips, but they are hardly the only successful university educated in that area.

"the self segregation of the Credentialed Caste within the larger group of very wealthy university educated"

So your Credentialed Caste is characterized neither by their credentials (since they are part of a 'larger group' of such people) nor by having the attributes of a caste (since they live and mix among these others)? Wow.

To start, this is not my Credentialed Caste. The chapter in my book I am dedicating to this subject will be primarily a summary of decades of other people's research defining this group. My very modest contribution will be an argument that this class is turning into a caste and to note their invention and direction of the modern totalitarian political economy.

I coined the term Credentialed Caste because this group views credentials as the source of their claim to elite social status, rather the more common view of university as job training.

Here is a good example of the Credentialed Caste's aristocratic view of credentials. In their story of days leading up to the al Qaeda attack on Benghazi called 13 Hours, the CIA military contractors related how they attempted to share their vast experience executing military ops and providing security in failed states with the CIA station chief and were told that the CIA had Harvard and Yale graduates to do the thinking and that the contractors should shut up and do what they were told. Of course, the Ivy League analysts were completely out of their depth, but they genuinely believed attending the right university entitled them to make decisions concerning matters about which they had no competence.

Note how the professors here repeatedly speak of their "elite" universities in order to distinguish them from the leaser universities where non-elite professors teach and non-elite students learn. This is classic Credentialed Caste thinking.

In their story of days leading up to the al Qaeda attack on Benghazi called 13 Hours, the CIA military contractors related how they attempted to share their vast experience executing military ops and providing security in failed states with the CIA station chief and were told that the CIA had Harvard and Yale graduates to do the thinking and that the contractors should shut up and do what they were told. Of course, the Ivy League analysts were completely out of their depth, but they genuinely believed attending the right university entitled them to make decisions concerning matters about which they had no competence.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:09 PM

That's a movie, dumbfuck. It's really amazing that you have not starved to death.

The problem is you've got people living side by side, intermarrying, and all getting degrees from elite universities which are then used to give them a 'leg up' in hiring, but some you don't think fall in the 'credentialed caste' and some that do. It doesn't seem to be credentials that constitute the class (you seem to say it's their 'attitude' about the credentials, but what evidence would you have that the technology employee with the degree in MIT living in Palo Alto thinks of their degree radically differently than their spouse who lives with them and works in corporate regulatory law with a degree from Yale). And it doesn't seem to be a caste when they live with (literally married to) and among non-caste members. I'd drop this part of the book while you're behind until you can think about this much more...

I do not have the space nor the inclination to reproduce my chapter outline here.

The research suggests that Credentialed Caste share several characteristics which other university grads do not share or share entirely:

1) Obtaining the the correct credentials2) Viewing these credentials as a source of elite social status.3) Clustered employment in the bureaucracy/political establishment, professions, academia, and more recently media and finance.4) Clustered residence in a relative few cities and university towns.5) Bureaucratic world view.6) Totalitarian ideology.7) An aristocratic view of the rest of the citizenry as less competent or incompetent.

Of course, any attempt to provide a list of characteristics for a group of individuals is always an imperfect exercise and there will be gradients and exceptions within the group. However, the vast majority of the Credentialed Caste will share all or nearly all of these characteristics, even if they deny doing so.

Something you pick up very quickly from David Brooks discussions of what he calls the "educated class" is the extent to which this group rationalizes their actions. For example, members of this "educated class" like to think of themselves as tolerant and inclusive when in fact they live apart from and routinely denigrate the rest of America. They criticize "the wealthy" for their excessive wealth, but often judge their own success by income and possessions.

SPAM I AM! keeps repeating "Credentialed Caste" in the manner of gobbledy goop Goebbels hoping it will stick as he self-promotes his upchucking work of Friction in progress. Is a trademark/copyright in progress? "WOO HOO!"

But Bart, you've already conceded that in these 'Clustered residence in a relative few cities and university towns' there exists, side by side and intermingled, people with degrees from elite universities, some of who work in the innovative workplaces of high tech Silicon Valley companies and others, often their actual spouses or neighbors, who are corporate lawyers helping navigate government regulations for their firms' clients. You say above the former are not the 'credentialed caste' and the latter are, yet they former are equally credentialed and intermingle/reside with the latter! How, then is one of these a 'caste' and the other not? And more importantly, since the rest of your differentiating characteristics are attitudinal, is there evidence that the MIT grad who works at Google does not 'View these credentials as a source of elite social status,' have a 'Bureaucratic world view,' 'Totalitarian ideology' (boy, I suspect the usual Bart bullshit in that characterization), and 'An aristocratic view of the rest of the citizenry as less competent or incompetent' while their Yale law degree having corporate lawyer wife does? Again, your 'credentialed class' is distinguished neither by their credentials nor by being a caste. You really should use another term!

The fact that the Credentialed Caste share some characteristics with other groups like graduation from "elite" universities and live near other graduates hardly means that this caste does not exist. The fact that a Republican went to university and later lived with Democrats does not make her any less an identifiable Republican.

Corporate lawyers navigating government regulations are more likely than not part of the Credentialed Caste. Depends on how many other characteristics they share with the caste.

A person could very well work outside the bureaucracy, professions, academia, media and finance, but still share all the other characteristics of the Credentialed Caste. As I noted above, there is variation within every group.

Bureaucratic world view is a paraphrase of historian Robert Weibe in his book Search for Order. Weibe believed this was a positive development that imposed order on the free market, a rather totalitarian view.

Nearly all of the founding theorists of the various totalitarian "isms" of the modern era - including progressivism - were from the Credentialed Caste and totalitarian governments without exception direct their societies through bureaucracies filled with the Credentialed Caste.

In the preface of his classic The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis offered this apt analogy:

I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern.

A caste is characterized by being socially distinct from other groups, if credentialed elites with the views you list (and surely misidentify) live among and with other credentialed elites that don't share them then they are hardly a 'caste.' In fact, credentialed elites move in and out of various fields and employers; the MIT educated engineer may work for a Silicon Valley company one day, and a top government agency the next, his Yale educated spouse may do the reverse.

This started when you said your 'credentialied caste' is 'the anti-thesis of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs,' but I've shown that the work and live with the latter (and often *are* the latter). You're just trying to exclude the latter because you don't want to admit what Murray says about your caste-that they are truly the cognitive elite, providing useful value to their employers in and out of government.

" ... But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices."

SPAM I AM! seems to be the opposite of much of this, taking this quote as support for SPAM I AM!'s "Credentialed Caste" critique that may be the center piece of SPAM I AM!'s upchucking work of Friction work in prgress. Perhaps the movie rights might provide SPAM I AM! a role in a "casteing call."

Note that the full C.S. Lewis quote ends with this:

" ... the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."

The latter portion seems to be aimed at private business. Perhaps SPAM I AM!'s "Credentialed Caste" applies to big business? Keep in mind SPAM I AM! favorite George W. was America's first MBA President and if elected "America First" Trump would be the second. Perhaps SPAM I AM! may expand his critique beyond government bureaucracy as well as address Piketty's inequality issues.

Mr. W: A caste is characterized by being socially distinct from other groups, if credentialed elites with the views you list (and surely misidentify) live among and with other credentialed elites that don't share them then they are hardly a 'caste.'

There are no other credentialed elites.

If the group lives primarily in and around the super zips identified by Murray and in university towns as other scholars have noted, then they self segregate into a tiny part of the United States and do not normally come into contact with the vast majority of the nation.

In fact, credentialed elites move in and out of various fields and employers; the MIT educated engineer may work for a Silicon Valley company one day, and a top government agency the next, his Yale educated spouse may do the reverse.

It would be extremely rare for an engineer to be part of the Credentialed Caste.

This started when you said your 'credentialied caste' is 'the anti-thesis of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs,' but I've shown that the work and live with the latter (and often *are* the latter).

Silicon Valley entrepreneurs (the folks who start up IT and internet businesses) are rarely graduates of "elite" universities (if they even attended college, most dropped out to pursue their projects), do not depend on their credentials for their success, and none of them could have a bureaucratic world view and succeed as an entrepreneur.

I have already noted that not all or even a majority of university graduates - wealthy or not - are part of the Credentialed Caste.

Silicon Valley entrepreneurs (the folks who start up IT and internet businesses) are rarely graduates of "elite" universities (if they even attended college, most dropped out to pursue their projects), do not depend on their credentials for their success, and none of them could have a bureaucratic world view and succeed as an entrepreneur.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 1:40 PM

The founder of the IT company that I just retired from is a MIT graduate. He thinks you"re an idiot.

Bart, I'm going to charitably chalk up your continued missing of my points to you being busy on your upcoming business.

"There are no other credentialed elites.If the group lives primarily in and around the super zips identified by Murray and in university towns as other scholars have noted, then they self segregate into a tiny part of the United States and do not normally come into contact with the vast majority of the nation."

I was talking about the highly credentialed Silicon Valley (and other areas) elites which work for technology firms which you say are not part of your credentialed caste but who, mysteriously, live with and among those (self segregate) you identify as part of your caste. That's not much of a caste.

"It would be extremely rare for an engineer to be part of the Credentialed Caste."

This is really silly comment, over one in ten engineers in the US work for federal, state or local governments, and that wouldn't count those engineers who work for companies tasked with helping them be compliant with regulations (many of which would be likely to have some of the views, in uncaricatured form of course, you ascribe to your caste). You just ignore this because you want to begin by defining your caste as unproductive villains and then go looking for supporting data (like any good Austrian school proponent I guess!).

"Silicon Valley entrepreneurs (the folks who start up IT and internet businesses) are rarely graduates of "elite" universities "

Like the co-founders of Google (who created it as Phd students at Stanford)? The founders of Intel (Phd from Cal Tech and Phd from MIT)? Scott Forstall, the man who headed up software development of the Iphone and Ipad, (MS from Stanford)?

And this doesn't count the many Phd's, MS and BS holders that are hired by (rather than founding their own) the top tech companies.

"none of them could have a bureaucratic world view and succeed as an entrepreneur."

Starting out with your conclusion assumed in the definition, typical.

"not all or even a majority of university graduates - wealthy or not - are part of the Credentialed Caste."

I never made that point. I said that wherever you find what you call the 'credentialed caste' in their 'self clusters' you'll also find equally highly credentialed, highly wealthy individuals who work in other fields like technology living with and among them, since you say the latter are not credentialed caste (in fact you say they can't be!) then the credentialed caste is not a caste.

No definition of a caste requires that its members live only amongst themselves within the geographical area of a zip code or any other geographical boundary you might offer.

Your suggestion that all government employees are members of the Credentialed Caste is a pile of red herring. I never made any such claim. The Credentialed Class dominate the regulatory bureaucracy, which is a minority of every government workforce.

Merely having to comply with regulations hardly makes one part of the Credentialed Class. Nearly every business and many engineers employed by those businesses have the misfortune of bearing this burden.

Finally, your suggestion that Silicon Valley entrepreneurs or any other entrepreneur is somehow part of or analogous to the Credentialed Caste is baseless. These groups are diametric opposites.

There are hundreds of entrepreneurs who start up IT and internet companies. I can call your examples and raise them with the founders of Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter. Additionally and once again, your handful of examples did not rely on their credentialing for their success or display in any way the bureaucratic thinking characteristic of the Credentialed Caste.

That latter point is key.

Freewheeling entrepreneurial thinking is the antithesis of bureaucratic thinking. Where entrepreneurs require the freedom to produce the goods and services to meet the needs of consumers, the regulatory bureaucracy seeks to limit or eliminate that freedom by directing what businesses can and cannot produce. Indeed, the Credentialed Caste and the regulatory bureaucracy arose over a century ago in a backlash against the new industrial entrepreneurs and sought to direct the economy to eliminate the "chaos" of the free market in which entrepreneurs operated.

Freewheeling entrepreneurial thinking is the antithesis of bureaucratic thinking. Where entrepreneurs require the freedom to produce the goods and services to meet the needs of consumers, the regulatory bureaucracy seeks to limit or eliminate that freedom by directing what businesses can and cannot produce. Indeed, the Credentialed Caste and the regulatory bureaucracy arose over a century ago in a backlash against the new industrial entrepreneurs and sought to direct the economy to eliminate the "chaos" of the free market in which entrepreneurs operated. # posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 6:22 PM

That is a big steaming pile of nonsense. Nobody is directing what entrepreneurs can or cannot produce, except to prevent them from ripping off their customers and/or dumping their waste on the rest of us.

"No definition of a caste requires that its members live only amongst themselves within the geographical area of a zip code or any other geographical boundary you might offer. "

No caste intermarries outside the caste, yet the people in Murray's superzips, such as Silicon Valley we've been discussing, have higher than average marriage rates, and include lots of people that, according to you, are not in your 'caste' and lots of people who are, and these people are going to often be intermarried. So, so much for your idea of 'caste.'

But even beyond that, here's what you yourself listed as a defining characteristic of your caste: "Clustered residence in a relative few cities and university towns" and "they self segregate into a tiny part of the United States." But, as has been demonstrated, they live side by side in Silicon Valley alongside folks that you vehemently claim are (and can not be!) part of the caste! That's not much self segregation, to live among, be married to, etc., people outside of the 'caste.'

"Your suggestion that all government employees are members of the Credentialed Caste is a pile of red herring."

I suggested that a lot of engineers work for the government in response to your statement "It would be extremely rare for an engineer to be part of the Credentialed Caste." Unless you'd like to argue that government employees are not more likely to have the attitudinal characteristics you mention, this alone undercuts your 'extremely rare' claim.

"Merely having to comply with regulations hardly makes one part of the Credentialed Class."

As I suspect you know, the 'top shelf' people who work with large corporations and firms to aid them in compliance with regulations have usually themselves at one time worked in the very regulatory agencies they help the corporations deal with.

"These groups are diametric opposites."

1. My claim is that many highly credentialed elites work for technology firms, not that they necessarily founded them. (" they work in finance or technology innovation")2. Even for founders of such companies, we can match examples all night, but that supports my position, because yours is the generalized and more absolute claims like ""Silicon Valley entrepreneurs (the folks who start up IT and internet businesses) are rarely graduates of "elite" universities" or "none of them could have a bureaucratic world view and succeed as an entrepreneur" or that they are the "anti-thesis" of your credentialed class. I've not made such foolish categorical and/or general statements, you have, and so it's your view that is undercut by us matching examples. 3. Your last few paragraphs are just your usual attempt to try to win an argument by defining things so they come out the way your argument needs. You'll just point to any highly credentialed counterexample successful tech entrepreneur and say 'oh, but they didn't *rely* on their credentials to get where they are' (whatever that would mean)' and every example of highly credentialed regulatory person you think belongs in that class and say 'oh, that person *just* relied on their credentials.' These are 'just so' stories, not empirically backed.

SPAM I AM! with his "Credentialed Caste" is obviously focusing upon politics as he sees politics myopically. The ever increasing complexities of America and the world at large have to find ways to function. There have been discussions over the years of the credentialed elite and the roles they play in various aspects of life. But SPAM I AM!'s focus is on the political aspects. And he apparently has a goal of addressing his "Credentialed Caste" by means of amending the Constitution. (No, I'm not interested in his amendment as SPAM I AM! has demonstrated at this Blog how un-credentialed he is in so many areas in which he claims expertise.)

In my semi-retirement just before the turn of this century, I started audited courses at a local university in my "senior citizen caste." One of the books that most impressed me was assigned in a 2001 political science/international relations course, written by C Wright Mills, "The Power Elite," published in 1956, after my college and law school days. I wish I had read this book in the early years of my law practice because of what it told of society, business, local, state and national government especially in America, and much more. The book was republished in 2000 with an Afterword by Alan Wolfe. I have commented on this book over the years at this Blog. Those who have been following this "Credentialed Caste" political diversion by SPAM I AM! might check the Table of Contents, keeping in mind that Ike was President in 1956 and America had come out of WW II a decade or earlier and economically succeeding, even with the Cold War setting in. (I would note that Mills was prescient regarding the military/industrial complex years before Ike addressed it as his second term was expiring.) Politics never was bean bag and has gotten more complicated, even after the Cold War ended. The electorate must pay attention and so must the elected officials to what is going on in America, in the world, with all its interdependence. Our Constitution is far from perfect, although it has progressed in many regards. But SPAM I AM!'s goal is purely political, as he sees politics, which is to say, go back to the good old days of The Gilded Age, eliminate regulations and the administrative state, to provide what he calls liberties but fails to address responsibilities. Mills' "The Power Elite" is a a scholarly work that raises many questions relevant today. SPAM I AM! is not scholarly, far from it. He uses this Blog as a platform for his political screeds and biases.

A class is basically a group of people with shared characteristics. What distinguishes a class from a caste is that people freely enter and leave the former, while such mobility is limited or non-existent in the latter. The "educated middle class" started moving toward becoming a caste when it self segregated in employment and residence from the rest of the nation, started intermarrying, and pushed, trained paid for its children to enter "elite" universities to stay within the class.

I agree that the Credentialed Caste is not nearly as rigid and exclusive as the Indian Caste system and the so called "educated middle class" just started taking on caste characteristics over the past couple generations.

I also agree and have previously noted that no social class definition is categorical. There are gradients and exceptions to various shared characteristics. You will have no problem playing your cherry picking games here. However, the group I call the Credentialed Caste is very real, well documented and increasingly powerful.

Once again, I did not define this group. I took the characteristics I noted from other scholars' research over decades. Thus, I am hardly changing the definition as I go along.

Under that definition, obtaining the correct "elite" credentials is the most important, but not the only characteristic of the Credentialed Caste.

The Power Elite described by C Wright Mills discusses the Credentialed Caste in parts of the bureaucracy and the capture of the bureaucracy by big business. This is another major reason why "rule by experts" does not work in the real world.

SPAM I AM! in attempts, after being effectively challenged, to "refine" the meaning of his "Credentialed Caste" does so in the manner of HUMPTY-DUMPTY, which is the appropriate "caste-rating" for SPAM I AM!

SPAM I AM! makes this concession:

"I agree that the Credentialed Caste is not nearly as rigid and exclusive as the Indian Caste system and the so called 'educated middle class' just started taking on caste characteristics over the past couple generations."

WOO HOO! That would take us back to the [drum roll] Reagan Administration, and taking place in SPAM I AM!'s lifetime.

Bart, I'm giving you a bit of a hard time because I've long been interested in theories of elites, I wrote my MS thesis in part about them. Shaq's notation of The Power Elite is one important work in this area. But what you're talking about has it's roots in the idea of the 'New Class,' which started with the work of Milovan Dilas' book of that name describing the bureaucratic class in Communist Yugoslavia. The term was picked up by Irving Kristol (Bill Kristol's dad), who in Two Cheers for Capitalism described a class defined by their work involving the manipulation of ideas and words as opposed to physical capital, a 'knowledge class'. Artists, educators, writers of various types, but also scientists, lawyers, social workers. He draws a bit on von Mises work on the Anti-Capitalist Mentality, but essentially Kristol's is, like Dilas', a type of Marxist work (the class is defined by the type of work they do, they are defenders of government because the fields they work in are often financially tied to government, they are hostile to the capitalist class for the same reason the bourgeoisie was hostile to the landed aristocracy under Marx's theory).

Murray drew on and added to this work by describing how the knowledge class was increasingly 1. self clustering socially (living in certain zipcodes and intermarrying) 2.a cognitive elite that, in a society where cognitive testing is legally discouraged for employment purposes, has turned to credentials from elite institutions to signal their superior cognitive skills and 3. has become increasingly wealthy.

You'd like to take what you like from this work but deny what you don't: that the elites described in general really are impressive on measurements of cognitive ability and really do bring superior value to their various employers. You obviously feel you must do this because so much of the cognitive elite disagree with you on politics and many of them go in and out of government service. So when faced with the fact that cognitive elites that work in government live among and intermarry cognitive elites whom you respect for working in the private sector, you insist that they're still two very different groups. That's silly, it's something you're imposing on the reality. The people in those superzips mix with and themselves go in and out of the public sector freely because *they're the same group (class or caste, there is a foundation that cognitive elites in general are increasingly clustering and intermarrying, just no evidence that your 'cognitive elites that have bureaucratic mindsets' do) of people.*

Shag: SPAM I AM! as a self proclaimed libertarian thinks "rule by non-experts" is preferable to "rule by experts," but deep down may prefer "non-rule by non-experts"?

The people demonstrated for over a century that they were perfectly capable of managing their own economy with the government largely limiting itself to enforcing contracts and policing theft and fraud.

As to controlling what people produce, no one tells McDonalds they have to serve hamburgers and nuggets, though they do set restrictions (like health measures in the preparation of the burgers and nuggets). They can stop making burgers tomorrow and sell hats if they want.

The people demonstrated for over a century that they were perfectly capable of managing their own economy with the government largely limiting itself to enforcing contracts and policing theft and fraud.

The reasons I discuss my book subjects here and at other blogs is to get critiques and additional source information. Sociology is not an area with which I am very familiar and I have obtained several valuable sources from blog correspondents.

As to your citations, I am using or have read the Mises and Kristol works.

Do you think the Dilas book is applicable to the western Credentialed Caste and regulatory bureaucracies?

Would you recommend any other sources?

As I noted above, I think the Murray book offers some useful data points, but I think he casts his net too wide to bring in multiple distinct groups. I do not see a single "cognitive" or "creative" class with shared characteristics.

My book is focused on explaining why the hybrid totalitarian political economy employed by every OECD nation is unsustainable and offering proposed amendments to reverse it and to realize a genuine "free market republic" that does not exclude large parts of the population as did the pre-progressive United States. The single chapter concerning the Credentialed Caste is necessary to explain why the developed world adopted a totalitarian political economy. It is not the focus of the book or the amendments.

Mr. W: As to controlling what people produce, no one tells McDonalds they have to serve hamburgers and nuggets, though they do set restrictions (like health measures in the preparation of the burgers and nuggets). They can stop making burgers tomorrow and sell hats if they want.

The government has not yet mandated that restaurants serve particular food like they have compelled insurers to provide certain coverages. However, various legislatures and the bureaucracy have limited foods or food preparations and are threatening wholesale food prohibitions to successfully coerce restaurants to change their menus.

Once again, totalitarianism does not require the government to direct all aspects of our lives. Rather, a totalitarian government does not recognize any limits on its power to direct what it pleases or at least what it can get away with without causing popular uprisings.

"The people demonstrated for over a century that they were perfectly capable of managing their own economy with the government largely limiting itself to enforcing contracts and policing theft and fraud.

Self-rule by non-experts, if you please."

I assume that period of "over a century" was from the Founding to just after The Gilded Age, which neitherSPAM I AM! nor I personally experience. In referring to "the peopLe" he fails, intentionally, to state that many of the people in America had imposed upon them what economically benefitted the oligarchs of those days. SPAM I AM! continues with his wet dreams of laissez faire. Perhaps in his own mind SPAM I AM! thinks he would have prospered in those good old days in America. But self-rule in a nation of 300+ population by idiotic non-experts which is the caste of SPAM I AM! is anarchical. I read a couple of reviews of "White Trash," including this in a recent NYTimes:

that describes the "caste" of SPAM I AM! had he existed SPAM I AM! references blogs other than this Blog where he presents his cockamamie work of Friction in progress for critiques. Do any of the usual supects here know of these other blogs for purposes of "truth squad" cross=blogging? SPAM I AM! concedes he uses this Blog for his self-promoted commercialism. HUMPTY-DUMPTYING is not addressing critiques.

I hope for the sake of his clients that his "multiple trials" are not "major cases." But maybe SPAM I AM! would be a result of eliminating licensure of professionals.

For perspective, CDFA’s estimate that probable risk is about 3.5 lifetime cancer cases per trillion population means that the population of the United States would have to increase 1,000 times before we would’expect to find one tumor caused by Alar.

http://courses.washington.edu/alisonta/pbaf590/pdf/Rosen_Alar.pdf

The manufactured Alar scare was a perfect example of the bureaucracy offering unsupported allegations posing as science to severely damage a business.

I don't think your totalitarianism definition works. You can see why with this question: Was the US in 1890 a totalitarian government? What limits to its power to direct what it pleases did it recognize?

It seems to me that whatever you say in response, someone could just reply 'well, it just didn't want to direct that' or 'it didn't think it could get away with directing that without a popular uprising' (this is of course what you say when anyone points out what on its face looks like a current example of governments recognizing limits on its power).

"Do you think the Dilas book is applicable to the western Credentialed Caste and regulatory bureaucracies?"

I'd think so, yes.

"Would you recommend any other sources?"

Daniel Bell and James Burnham's work, respectively. You'd like the work of Stanley Rothman and Robert Lerner, both conservatives, on cultural elites.

"I do not see a single "cognitive" or "creative" class with shared characteristics"

Your very title, though, of 'credentialed caste' is going to make anyone whose read in this area think of Murray's ideas, because for him the main shared characteristic of the class he covers is that they are a cognitive elite, they all score very highly on tests that (in his conclusion) reflect general intelligence well, and they tend to have excellent credentials because they are the few that can get into such schools and the disfavored status of intelligence tests in employment law means educational credentials act as a proxy for intelligence. This class is becoming more self clustering and intermarried.

The problems with your approach imo seem to be that you're trying to find a subclass or division among this group that likely doesn't exist in any measured or measurable way. You want to distinguish highly credentialed people that are 'clustered' in a few 'cities and university towns,' but these places also have a boatload of highly credentialed people who don't work in the sectors you name as another defining characteristic of your caste. In other words your point 3 is in tension with your point 4; if the Berkeley professor and career diplomat live side by side with the MIT educated computer programmer or Stanford engineer in Palo Alto, it's hard to say they're 'self segregating' from non-caste members.

Also problematic to me it seems are points 5, 6 and 7. Let's put aside that I think your understanding of these is likely to be idiosyncratic. More problematic is, do you have any empirical evidence that, say, in Palo Alto the career diplomat and professor possess these attitudinal characteristics but their equally credentialed neighbor computer programmer and engineer don't? If not it looks like Murray (or Florida, the Creative Class guy) are correct that we're talking about one group here, not two. And it looks like you just want two because 1. you don't respect some in the group do for a living and 2. you think that, by definition (as opposed to empirical evidence), people that do certain jobs can't attitudinally be like those they live with and among who do different jobs.

To be honest, I just don't buy the basis for the theory overall; I don't think we have a elite cabal stymieing voters, I think we have a working political system which, like most big organizations, tends to hire credentialed experts to run things because they see the credentials as an indicator of competence. I think for the most part we get the government programs the public wants, the public can be a fickle and contradictory beast at times, but they don't get absolutely thwarted for long. For example, polls can show that a majority might hate 'welfare,' but when certain programs start getting cut you start to see the opposition grow. A person can answer yes to the question 'does the federal government spend too much' and then holler like crazy when their medicaid is cut or the defense budget is cut. But, if you're going to go with an elite theory, I suggest you consider my points before so.

Mr. W, you credit SPAM I AM! too much by referring to his "elite cluster bombing" as a theory, whereas it doesn't make the grade even as a hypothesis. Futurist Toffler recently passed away. What he foresaw, not necessarily all that accurately, was premised on progressions of the past. Understandably, foresight is far from 20-20. SPAM I AM! looks back with thoughts of recreating some part of the past as liberty's/America's best days. Alas, SPAM I AM! is myopic and at base anarchic.

Mr. W: I don't think your totalitarianism definition works. You can see why with this question: Was the US in 1890 a totalitarian government? What limits to its power to direct what it pleases did it recognize?

The US national government in 1890 was almost the complete antithesis of our modern totalitarian political economy. Nearly every elected representative both publicly recognized and followed the Constitution's limits on their power - both expressed and implied. You know them not by what they say, but by what they do.

The government recognized and followed the separation of powers between the branches and with the states. The president or his executive branch did not decree law, change or provide dispensations from the laws of Congress or attempt to spend money unappropriated by Congress. Congress very seriously debated whether it had any power to democratically enact negative directions of the economy or class legislation under the commerce clause and equal protection. The judiciary generally told them no.

Progressive theorists like professor Woodrow Wilson were just beginning to challenge these limits.

Mr. W: Daniel Bell and James Burnham's work, respectively. You'd like the work of Stanley Rothman and Robert Lerner, both conservatives, on cultural elites.

Thank you for the authors. Any book recommendations which focus on the Credentialed Caste and the bureaucracies in both the government and the private economy. I am not interested in elites in general, just this particular group.

"Any book recommendations which focus on the Credentialed Caste and the bureaucracies in both the government and the private economy. I am not interested in elites in general, just this particular group."

Which, if any, of the books recommended by Mr. W focuses on SPAM I AM!;s evolving, HUMPTY DUMPTYISH definition of his "Credentialed Caste"? His conceded lack of interest in elites demonstrates SPAM I AM!'s myopia and narrowness of mind. SPAM I AM! is merely feebly attempting by the backdoor his long stated desire for minute government. SPAM I AM! is a sick puppy, a Don Quixote, the latter part of Don's steed.

BD: "I do not see a single "cognitive" or "creative" class with shared characteristics"

Mr. W: Your very title, though, of 'credentialed caste' is going to make anyone whose read in this area think of Murray's ideas, because for him the main shared characteristic of the class he covers is that they are a cognitive elite, they all score very highly on tests that (in his conclusion) reflect general intelligence well, and they tend to have excellent credentials because they are the few that can get into such schools and the disfavored status of intelligence tests in employment law means educational credentials act as a proxy for intelligence. This class is becoming more self clustering and intermarried.

When I sit down to write this chapter, I will do my best to avoid this analogy because Murray is not describing the Credentialed Caste, which long preexisted standardized testing, and because I completely disagree that people who do well on standardized testing are some sort of a coherent class sharing multiple characteristics. That being said, one of the reasons I believe that the "educate middle class" is moving toward becoming a caste is the advent of the standardized testing screen and the ability of upper middle class folks to pay for test preparation.

You want to distinguish highly credentialed people that are 'clustered' in a few 'cities and university towns,' but these places also have a boatload of highly credentialed people who don't work in the sectors you name as another defining characteristic of your caste. In other words your point 3 is in tension with your point 4; if the Berkeley professor and career diplomat live side by side with the MIT educated computer programmer or Stanford engineer in Palo Alto, it's hard to say they're 'self segregating' from non-caste members.

The scholarship suggests that Credentialed Caste folks choose to live together in clusters. They have no power to keep others from living in or near them.

The fact that engineers and IT folks happen to live with the Credentialed Caste certain areas of California is almost certainly a coincidence driven by the location of high tech employment in the area.

Mr. W: More problematic is, do you have any empirical evidence that, say, in Palo Alto the career diplomat and professor possess these attitudinal characteristics but their equally credentialed neighbor computer programmer and engineer don't?

Studies of the bureaucracy and academia strongly suggest that the career diplomat and professor are very likely to share these attitudinal characteristics. I am unaware of similar studies of engineers and programmers. The programmers and engineers I know personally do not appear to share these (or many other) attitudinal characteristics with one another.

I don't think we have a elite cabal stymieing voters...

The Credentialed Caste are not some cabal with central leadership, they are a group which shares common characteristics. However, this caste supports and populates totalitarian government with a remarkable consistency.

Anecdotally, observe the folks who post here. Apart from a very small handful of outliers like Randy Barnett, the professoriat who post here almost universally support and actively attempt to legally and morally justify the elements of the totalitarian political economy - unlimited government, the absolute bureaucracy, direction of the economy and redistribution of wealth.

On a broader scale, Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen extensively polled variety of questions concerning general attitudes concerning trust in government and support for limited government as well as support for various progressive and socialist Obama administration policies during the first administration and found that roughly 7% of the population shares consistent support for the totalitarian political economy. The information I was able to obtain from the pollsters suggests that this 7% closely corresponds with the Credentialed Caste.

Even though I have obtained the necessary credentials to be part of one of these bubbles, my working class family background still prevails.

My score was 67, which places me in the following category:

48–99: A lifelong resident of a working-class neighborhood with average television and movie going habits. Typical: 77.

Murray makes the mistake of necessarily equating small towns like the ones where I have and now live with working class neighborhoods. I live in an exurb of Colorado Springs with a wide spectrum of incomes and restaurants which range from yuppie bistros to Denny's

Here's SPAM I AM!'s "J'ACCUSE" of this Blog's professoriate "caste" (with the exception of random Randy Barnett who was "smoked" by the late Justice Scalia in the "intrastate" ganja Raich case):

" Apart from a very small handful of outliers like Randy Barnett, the professoriat who post here almost universally support and actively attempt to legally and morally justify the elements of the totalitarian political economy - unlimited government, the absolute bureaucracy, direction of the economy and redistribution of wealth."

Maybe Randy will provide a blurb for SPAM I AM!'s upchucking work of Friction in progress.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], is Denny's in his neighborhood where SPAM I AM! and other "un-elite meet to eat"? I can understand that Denny's might be a bubble for bubbas.

Speaking of elites (rather than castes), Neil Irwin's NYTimes Upshot column "How a Quest by ElitesIs Driving 'Brexit' and Trump" is quite interesting. Note the experiment on students at Yale Law School.

Also, the current issue of Consumer Reports leads with an article on high student loans with some indebted by college questioning was college worth it.

These are related to the issue of income/asset inequality that should be addressed, including by government.

REMINDER: After celebrating the 4th, the 5th, not just in spirits, celebrates the release of Garry Trudeau's "Yuge! 30 Years of Doonebury onTrump." Check out this link to Amazon (aka WaPo) for details:

BD: "The people demonstrated for over a century that they were perfectly capable of managing their own economy with the government largely limiting itself to enforcing contracts and policing theft and fraud. Self-rule by non-experts, if you please."

Shag: I assume that period of "over a century" was from the Founding to just after The Gilded Age, which neitherSPAM I AM! nor I personally experience. In referring to "the peopLe" he fails, intentionally, to state that many of the people in America had imposed upon them what economically benefitted the oligarchs of those days.

By 1890, American workers enjoyed higher earnings, better housing, and access and ownership of more personal property than any other workforce in the world. Socialists around the world blamed this bounty for the American supermajority refusal to support a socialist party. See Seymour Lipset and Gary Marks. It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States Instead, it was the Credentialed Caste of the time which attacked the industrial entrepreneurs. See Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform

But self-rule in a nation of 300+ population by idiotic non-experts which is the caste of SPAM I AM! is anarchical.

We must keep the rabble in line, eh?

Mr. W, Exhibit 1 of the aristocratic viewpoint of the Credentialed Caste.

SPAM I AM! repeats over and over again "Credentialed Caste" with evolving meanings. Here's a variation of Lewis Carroll, from his Through the Looking Glass:

***

'When I use the words 'Credentialed Caste,’ SPAM I AM! said in rather a scornful tone, ‘they means just what I choose them to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Shag from Brookline, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said SPAM I AM!, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

***

SPAMI AM! deals in mindless matter. As for Exhibits, randomly peruse in the Archives of this Blog comments made by SPAM I AM! over the years. So I guess self-rule of SPAM I AM! as a master-debator is proof of his pudding.

for Thomas Frank's "The Life of the Parties The influence of 'Influence' in Washington." "Influence" is a daily newsletter of Politico. Interesting stuff. Money talks (aka Citizens United) louder than We, the People." [SPAM I AM!'s eyes will widen on the references to Ivy schools.]

Also, check out Nancy Isenberg's WaPo July 1st essay "Five myths about class in America." Isenberg is the author of the recently published "White Trash."

Income/asset inequality is a real problem that needs to be addressed in a serious manner.

I won't be around, but perhaps decades from now the WaPo may feature in its "five myths" feature SPAM I AM!'s "Credentialed Caste." And Googling by readers may lead back to this thread as its gestation, a living myth.

I continue to recommend Zephyr Teachout's book including its discussion of the much greater limits on lobbying accepted in the 19th Century; actually far into the 20th. Contra some who seem to pine for some golden age where such things were not as regulated as they are today. See also: